Search results

many hpa ssa controllers support passthrough. use that. if your doesnt, get one that does.

https://kb.isc.org/docs/managing-manual-multi-master

virtually all PERCs of modern flavor can do passthrough. check your manual.

using iscsi-tgt (block) or smbd/nfsd (file.) Might want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-attached_storage

Why is this a problem? are you having any issues? You have a single path, but two controllers. one of them is inactive since there is no path to it you could probably just map the first device directly and ignore the sdc device completely since you would never end up using that path- although...

Oh I see what you mean. I read the original request as to have an active multisite cluster with multiple failure domains. Yes, you can do what you suggest but it would require manual intervention; that is fine for a disaster recovery approach but not for high availability. That is only half...

Are you referring to pve? can you link documentation? I have not seen any provision for layered clusters but I'd be the first to admit I dont always read the documentation all the way through ;)

It is theoretically possible to create something similar with pve, but its not built in. Also, corosync is latency sensitive so unless you have a guaranteed low latency interDC link to all three locations (including the witness node) this would cause more problems then it solves. The way I...

yes.

It depends how you mean "SAN." In the strictest sense, SAN refers to shared block storage, which in this case means iscsi. Within a PVE environment, iscsi is limited to full fat LVM which eliminates the potential for snapshots. HOWEVER, if you use a supported back end provider such as TrueNAS...

bad idea. pve is a full debian, not an embedded OS and will murder your flash card.

Properly is an indeterminate quality. A 3 node ceph cluster can work, but in your case it will be slow no matter what you do- you have very few osd's and they're HDDs. You also have a problem with lopsided osd distribution; in this configuration (4TB/4TB/2TB) your file system will only be able...

perfect! now all you need is to set the nfs share in pve storage, as described here: https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Storage

https://docs.qnap.com/operating-system/qts/5.0.x/en-us/configuring-nfs-service-settings-4A850D3A.html

the dev team simply didnt put as much effort into the tooling and integration; consequently its just not that mature. It doesnt mean there is no maturity to the underlying file system. FWIW I have a single node deployment with BTRFS which seems to work fine but I dont think I want to use it in...

ah. well, doesnt meaningfully changes the prognosis or next steps.

Just sayin.... you got problems. run a smart test on BOTH disks, but I suspect the issue isnt your drives. all those abrt's recorded by your WD suggests the problem is with cabling/motherboard. considering the age of the hardware, that might not be so surprising.

I would avoid using a block lun for this. Whats the make/model of your NAS?

For starters, it never hurts to look at the documentation: https://support.purestorage.com/bundle/m_linux/page/Solutions/Linux/Installing_and_Configuring/topics/concept/c_helpful_links_05.html Otherwise, @bbgeek17 is on point as always ;)

Research and reading. no one is born knowing all the answers. Your acceptance isnt necessary. Nothing in life is without failings. If you can accept THAT, you can begin realizing that you cannot prevent fault, just mitigate its effects.